| Alberto Gonzalez is disturbed over Eric Holder's unambiguous confirmation hearing statement: "Waterboarding is torture." NPR interviewed Gonzalez and you can find a summary at The Swamp. I've annotated it here with notes from inside Alberto's head: Gonzales, in an interview airing on National Public Radio's Tell Me More today, voiced his concern about "Making a blanket pronouncement like that.'' He noted "the effect it may have... on the morale and the dedication of intelligence officials and lawyers throughout the administration." Voice Inside Alberto's Head (VIAH): It's hurting my morale. Plus, I can't get a job as it is. "My reaction was very similar to General Mukasey's reaction, which was concern about making a pronouncement like that,'' Gonzales said, pointing to the "concern that would arise in the minds of intelligence officials and lawyers at the department, who all acted in good faith, working as hard as they can under very difficult circumstances, to give advice and make decisions to protect our country... VIAH: It was those intelligence officers and lawyers I worked with who wanted to do all those bad things, not me. "I don't know whether or not, in making that statement, Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions, all of the underlying documentation supporting the opinions'' that the Justice Department had issued on the question, he said - noting also "the threat that existed at the time these opinions were offered, and the opinions of the intelligence officials about their belief in a particular detainee having very important, valuable intelligence information that might save American lives.'' VIAH: There was a ticking time bomb you see, and we had "opinions" that torture was okay. W had opinions, Rummy had opinions. John Yoo had some really great opinions. On the question of prosecuting officers who employed any of the "extreme tactics'' that the Bush administration has acknowledged, without admitting to any "torture'' of detainees: "I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.'' Gonzales said. "Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.''
VIAH. Duh! You people are so stupid. We said we could torture people, don't you get that? We gave ourselves the authority so we had the authority. I could poke you in the eyes right now because I still have the authority to do that. John Yoo said so. Continued inside. |
"Nonetheless, the very discussion about it is extremely discouraging,'' the former attorney general said. "And I have talked to officials, senior officials at the CIA for example, who tell me that agents at the CIA no longer have any interest at doing anything remotely controversial, for fear that they are going to be investigated, and they're going to have to go out and hire lawyers in order to do their job. VIAH: It's sad to watch would-be torturers walking around with their hang dog looks. Work's just not fun for them anymore. "And so it has a very discouraging effect. And the net result of all of that is that people will not be doing what they need to be doing to gain intelligence that will help us connect the dots and protect our country from another attack." VIAH: Connecting dots, that's all. Like when we connected those dots from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. Sometimes the dots don't want to be connected and it takes some brute force. Get over it. You think dots like "Nigerian uranium" are just gonna reveal themselves without a little persuasion if you know what I mean. MS. MARTIN: None of my business, but do you mind telling me who you voted for? MR. GONZALES: Who did I? I voted for John McCain. I believe that John McCain, I believe in his policies and his visions of America, and that's why I support him and that's why I think people should vote for someone.
VIAH: Plus, I thought my chances of being prosecuted were pretty small in a McCain administration. MS. MARTIN: I think what Mr. Holder and those who agree with his position are saying, though, is that it wasn't worth it - that these practices did not yield important information and that, in fact, even if they did, that they damaged America's standing abroad to such a degree that it wasn't worth it. What do you say to that? MR. GONZALES: Well, I think as a lawyer, we need to be careful in saying that it didn't produce valuable intelligence, because my recollection is that the intelligence officials gave a contradictory testimony - or have made contradictory statements. They come to the lawyers - intelligence officials come to lawyers - and say we lack this information. In order to get this information, this is what we believe we need to do. As lawyers, we don't say, at that point, well, no, we disagree with you; you can get that information a different way. That's not our job.
VIAH: Wait, wasn't there something in law school about "balancing tests" or something. And, okay, maybe there was something about it being better to do things legally than to do things illegally. But it's not really the AG's job to tell them "no, that would be illegal" is it? I mean they really really really needed the information. Plus, some of those guys at CIA were going to be sad if they didn't get to slap somebody around. Our job as lawyers is to say, okay, we will tell you whether or not this can be done lawfully. And so if the intelligence officials are saying that the information gathered helped protect America, I think we need to take - we need to believe them as opposed to believing the lawyers who say, oh, I don't think that's going to be as effective. VIAH: Let me repeat the first part: "Our job as lawyers is to say okay." MS. MARTIN: Well, but civilian control of both the military and these questions, as I said, a well-established core value of the United States, and one of our - one of the arguments of the critics - is that this - that civilians such as yourself, officers of the government, have a duty to set a bright line, and this is so violative (sic) of the values of the American people that on that basis, it's not worth it. What do you say to that? MR. GONZALES: Well, you know, when people talk about values, I don't know whether or not we're talking about my values or your values - whose values are we talking about? The values of the American people are typically incorporated and reflected in the laws passed by Congress and in our Constitution. And that's where our values are easily - can be easily seen and can be easily interpreted and understood and so, so long as the actions are consistent with our laws and consistent with our Constitution, I think you can make a very strong argument that the actions taken are consistent with our values.
VIAH: Damn media elites. She's obviously got San Francisco values if you know what I mean. MS. MARTIN: Are you at all concerned that you will be prosecuted for your role in defending setting policies around these techniques? MR. GONZALES: No. I'm not - listen, I think only a fool wouldn't be worried about a prosecution motivated for political reasons, or - I mean, Washington can be a very difficult town and a mean-spirited town. But I think if you look at the evidence, if people tell the truth, I don't see a criminal prosecution for me, nor for anyone that I'm aware of, because again, based on what I have observed, people acted in good faith. They didn't act for political considerations; they didn't act for personal considerations; they acted in the best interests of the United States as they saw it.
VIAH: Fuck yes I'm worried. MS. MARTIN: Final question on this point, though, that your successors and the Obama administration are saying that they don't believe that these techniques are necessary to keep America safe. Any regrets on your part? MR. GONZALES: Again, I question whether or not it's their role to make that kind of judgment. I think that the intelligence officials are professionals; it's their judgment to decide whether or not these kinds of - any technique, any technique in the war on terror, whether it be Guantanamo, whether it be interrogation, whether it be in surveillance - it's the role, the responsibility, of the intelligence officials to say this is something we need to protect America and for the lawyers to say, well, that can lawfully be done - that cannot lawfully be done.
VIAH: Regrets? I've had a few. But then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do. And saw it through without exemption. I planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway. But more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew, when I bit off more than I could chew. But through it all, when there was doubt, I ate it up and spit it out. I faced it all and I stood tall, and did it my way. |
